G.R. No. 186659-710; October 19, 2011
Zacaria A. Candao, Abas A. Candao and Israel B. Haron, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, Respondents.

FACTS

On August 5, 1993, the Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman constituted a team to conduct an Expanded Special Audit of the Office of the Regional Governor, Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ORG-ARMM) for the period July 1992 to March 1993. The audit, as per SAO Report No. 93-25, revealed illegal withdrawals from the agency’s depository accounts through the issuance of 52 checks payable to petitioner Israel B. Haron (Disbursing Officer II) without the required disbursement vouchers. The checks, with a grand total of ₱21,045,570.64, were drawn from PNB Account No. 370-3208 (₱11,118,570.64) and Account No. 844061 (Treasurer of the Philippines) (₱9,927,000.00). The checks were signed by Haron together with either Abas A. Candao (Executive Secretary) or Zacaria A. Candao (Regional Governor). On September 10, 1993, COA demanded Haron to restitute the full amount. On April 17, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao filed 52 criminal cases for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code against Zacaria A. Candao, Israel B. Haron, Abas A. Candao, and Pandical M. Santiago (Cashier). The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malversation of public funds.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s Decision. The Court held that all elements of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office; (3) those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (4) he appropriated, took, misappropriated, or consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. Petitioners, as accountable officers, failed to account for the missing public funds. Their defense—that the withdrawals were for legitimate government expenses and that the funds were liquidated—was rejected. The absence of supporting disbursement vouchers for the checks constituted prima facie evidence of malversation, and petitioners failed to rebut this presumption. The Court also ruled that conspiracy was adequately proven by the concerted actions of petitioners in signing and encashing the checks without the required documentation. The penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.